Hi,
popular Sets in the BDP-Series sell out within hours.
I appreciate the numbers have already been raised to 30k Sets.
But I would like to suggest to raise the production numbers for BDP-Sets even
more, maybe to 50k or 100k.
So people from different time zones have a better chance of getting a popular
set.
It will decrease frustrations with people coming too late.
More sets sold: More money for Bricklink and Lego.
Win-win for all!
So I suggest to give the BDP-programme a higher priority and more production
capacity in the Lego factories.
Hi,
popular Sets in the BDP-Series sell out within hours.
I appreciate the numbers have already been raised to 30k Sets.
But I would like to suggest to raise the production numbers for BDP-Sets even
more, maybe to 50k or 100k.
So people from different time zones have a better chance of getting a popular
set.
It will decrease frustrations with people coming too late.
More sets sold: More money for Bricklink and Lego.
Win-win for all!
So I suggest to give the BDP-programme a higher priority and more production
capacity in the Lego factories.
The fastest selling ones this time were available for 7 hours or so.
The downside of raising it to 100k is that it looks bad if they don't all
sell. Plus there might be issues with how much designers are paid. Designers
of larger sets would be paid over £1M or equivalent in USD or Euro. Is it right
to pay that much to someone not an employee compared to what they pay employees
for designing sets.
Hi,
popular Sets in the BDP-Series sell out within hours.
I appreciate the numbers have already been raised to 30k Sets.
But I would like to suggest to raise the production numbers for BDP-Sets even
more, maybe to 50k or 100k.
So people from different time zones have a better chance of getting a popular
set.
It will decrease frustrations with people coming too late.
More sets sold: More money for Bricklink and Lego.
Win-win for all!
So I suggest to give the BDP-programme a higher priority and more production
capacity in the Lego factories.
Why make a limitation at all? Min. number for funding... and for the rest we
will see. Time frame can also be more than 30 days....
But than it will not be so interesting for investors which speculate on "limited"
sets...
[…]
Why make a limitation at all? Min. number for funding... and for the rest we
will see. Time frame can also be more than 30 days....
But than it will not be so interesting for investors which speculate on "limited"
sets...
BDP sets are not the same as LEGO sets in the way they are designed, planned,
and produced.
“Normal” sets take longer from design to production and aren’t proposed for vote
18 months and ordered 6 months before you receive them. (And those delays are
because LEGO reduced them the most they could be reduced.)
Due to their nature, fans’ designs that are almost completely left as-is, they
don’t have the same standard as “normal” sets.
They also appeal to way fewer people.
I doubt even the ones that sold out rapidly would sell for 100,000 more or even
10,000 more.
Yes, the quantity and time limits bring in a few speculators (but with a limit
of 2 copies per buyer, that’s limited too), but without these limits:
— There won’t be significantly more buyers.
— It’ll be a logistic loss: LEGO can’t keep producing a set for years if it doesn’t
sell.
— It would also change the relation between the designer and LEGO and that could
cause other problems.
— At best, it would make BDP the same as LEGO Ideas, and then, what’s the difference?
Bottom line: It’s fans designs, not LEGO Ideas, not “normal” sets.
[…]
Why make a limitation at all? Min. number for funding... and for the rest we
will see. Time frame can also be more than 30 days....
But than it will not be so interesting for investors which speculate on "limited"
sets...
BDP sets are not the same as LEGO sets in the way they are designed, planned,
and produced.
“Normal” sets take longer from design to production and aren’t proposed for vote
18 months and ordered 6 months before you receive them. (And those delays are
because LEGO reduced them the most they could be reduced.)
Due to their nature, fans’ designs that are almost completely left as-is, they
don’t have the same standard as “normal” sets.
They also appeal to way fewer people.
I doubt even the ones that sold out rapidly would sell for 100,000 more or even
10,000 more.
Yes, the quantity and time limits bring in a few speculators (but with a limit
of 2 copies per buyer, that’s limited too), but without these limits:
— There won’t be significantly more buyers.
— It’ll be a logistic loss: LEGO can’t keep producing a set for years if it doesn’t
sell.
— It would also change the relation between the designer and LEGO and that could
cause other problems.
— At best, it would make BDP the same as LEGO Ideas, and then, what’s the difference?
Bottom line: It’s fans designs, not LEGO Ideas, not “normal” sets.
There is also the issue that if they weren't limited then they would become
less interesting to resellers and so they might cut off those sales. If the production
numbers were unlimited but the window was set at 30 days, then it wouldn't
surprise me if the sales numbers were quite low at the start and only ramp up
towards the end of the window. If I was buying 2 for resale, I'd wait until
near the end of the window to see how popular the set was. If not many were sold,
I'd leave it as it is not wanted. If many were sold towards the end of the
window, I'd also leave it as there could be many bought by other resellers.
I'd only buy for resale if there was reasonable interest but not lots of
late interest.
It converts one buying game into another buying game needing more analysis to
play.
I also think the numbers now are about right, at least for the big sets. I occasionally
check BDP set prices on ebay / facebook / here, and sales volumes where possible,
and it looks like some of the recent BDP are barely worth 15-30% more than retail
now.
The Castle in the Forest was more limited and went to about 2x price very quickly
and is now at 2.5-3x. The Mountain Fortress is currently sitting at about 30%
above retail price. Just 3 have sold in the UK, and one is sitting at 16% above
retail price on here. It is doing better in Europe as a whole - almost 170 sales
with an average of 30% above retail. For the US, about 25% above.
It wouldn't surprise me if it went to max 50000 production numbers of the
big sets, that sales would possibly go down as resellers drop out due to more
competition if there are better profits available on regular retail sets (especially
if discounted).
One change that might be interesting though is having a limit on the total income
for the designer by having variable limits based on the size / part count. As
it is, there is an incentive to go big, as it means more income for the designer.
Why go for a 2500 piece large set when a 4000 piece even large set will give
a higher payout. A 1000 piece set will only ever make a quarter of what a 4000
piece set will make for the designer. Whereas if there was a higher maximum number
produced for smaller sets, adjusted so that the total income to the designer
was about equalized, then it might mean designers didn't go as big. And that
might mean that we got more smaller designs being submitted and available, as
they could make the same money by selling more units which is currently not possible
with a fixed maximum across all size designs.
[…]
One change that might be interesting though is having a limit on the total income
for the designer by having variable limits based on the size / part count. As
it is, there is an incentive to go big, as it means more income for the designer.
Why go for a 2500 piece large set when a 4000 piece even large set will give
a higher payout. A 1000 piece set will only ever make a quarter of what a 4000
piece set will make for the designer. Whereas if there was a higher maximum number
produced for smaller sets, adjusted so that the total income to the designer
was about equalized, then it might mean designers didn't go as big. And that
might mean that we got more smaller designs being submitted and available, as
they could make the same money by selling more units which is currently not possible
with a fixed maximum across all size designs.
It’s not all on the whim of the designers: they don’t decide that their set will
be chosen.
I also doubt they choose their design on the income they’ll make. Well, I don’t.
OTOH, bigger sets appeal more. They are more impressive. Also to the designers
themselves.
They also cost more, but I think people vote first what they like, not on what
they’ll really buy (proof: Parisian Street, Lost City).
Designers already have an incentive to not go too big: BDP sets have an average
of 2,500 parts.
They take the winners by vote… but also by size. They have 5 slots (so 12,500
parts total), and if they have two at 3,500-4,000 parts, there’s only c. 5,000
parts left for the other 3 sets.
As Alex repeats in all webinars: aim for 2,000-2,500 parts because if you propose
a 4,000-part set, there’s more competition and fewer slots.
(BDP1: 12,303; BPD2: 11,081; BPD3: 12,603, BDP4: 12,205, BPD5: 12,914.)
In the end, it’s up to the voters to elect smaller sets. You have 3 days left
to vote for smaller builds on BPD6. There’s very good ones, and the best one
is only 745 parts
They also cost more, but I think people vote first what they like, not on what
they’ll really buy (proof: Parisian Street, Lost City).
This is flaw of the voting system. Maybe as well as parts, unique parts and stickers,
there should be an "indicative cost price" listed so you can see how
much a set will cost before voting. They could even go further with that and
say that each user has, for example, $20K worth of votes that they can spread
around rather than just clicking on every design that looks good. Or if they
don't want to confuse things with real currency, give sets a BDP bucks price,
with a set number of BDP bucks to vote.
They also cost more, but I think people vote first what they like, not on what
they’ll really buy (proof: Parisian Street, Lost City).
This is flaw of the voting system. Maybe as well as parts, unique parts and stickers,
there should be an "indicative cost price" listed so you can see how
much a set will cost before voting.
Everybody goes with the mythical “¢10 per piece” (either $ or €). So far,
it looks more like €0.08/$0.088 per part.
They could even go further with that and
say that each user has, for example, $20K worth of votes that they can spread
around rather than just clicking on every design that looks good. Or if they
don't want to confuse things with real currency, give sets a BDP bucks price,
with a set number of BDP bucks to vote.
Seems complicated with 300 sets. Also, (unfortunately,) not everybody looks
at all the sets.
Everybody goes with the mythical “¢10 per piece” (either $ or €). So far,
it looks more like €0.08/$0.088 per part.
When buying, yes I'm sure they think about it. But when voting, do people
think about the cost at all? I doubt that many people even look at the details
of each submission one by one, and instead just look at the gallery and click
the voting buttons there.
[…]
One change that might be interesting though is having a limit on the total income
for the designer by having variable limits based on the size / part count. As
it is, there is an incentive to go big, as it means more income for the designer.
Why go for a 2500 piece large set when a 4000 piece even large set will give
a higher payout. A 1000 piece set will only ever make a quarter of what a 4000
piece set will make for the designer. Whereas if there was a higher maximum number
produced for smaller sets, adjusted so that the total income to the designer
was about equalized, then it might mean designers didn't go as big. And that
might mean that we got more smaller designs being submitted and available, as
they could make the same money by selling more units which is currently not possible
with a fixed maximum across all size designs.
It’s not all on the whim of the designers: they don’t decide that their set will
be chosen.
I also doubt they choose their design on the income they’ll make. Well, I don’t.
OTOH, bigger sets appeal more. They are more impressive. Also to the designers
themselves.
They also cost more, but I think people vote first what they like, not on what
they’ll really buy (proof: Parisian Street, Lost City).
Designers already have an incentive to not go too big: BDP sets have an average
of 2,500 parts.
They take the winners by vote… but also by size. They have 5 slots (so 12,500
parts total), and if they have two at 3,500-4,000 parts, there’s only c. 5,000
parts left for the other 3 sets.
As Alex repeats in all webinars: aim for 2,000-2,500 parts because if you propose
a 4,000-part set, there’s more competition and fewer slots.
(BDP1: 12,303; BPD2: 11,081; BPD3: 12,603, BDP4: 12,205, BPD5: 12,914.)
In the end, it’s up to the voters to elect smaller sets. You have 3 days left
to vote for smaller builds on BPD6. There’s very good ones, and the best one
is only 745 parts
Hi,
popular Sets in the BDP-Series sell out within hours.
I appreciate the numbers have already been raised to 30k Sets.
But I would like to suggest to raise the production numbers for BDP-Sets even
more, maybe to 50k or 100k.
So people from different time zones have a better chance of getting a popular
set.
It will decrease frustrations with people coming too late.
More sets sold: More money for Bricklink and Lego.
Win-win for all!
So I suggest to give the BDP-programme a higher priority and more production
capacity in the Lego factories.
Why make a limitation at all? Min. number for funding... and for the rest we
will see. Time frame can also be more than 30 days....
But than it will not be so interesting for investors which speculate on "limited"
sets...
Every single set LEGO has ever produced is "limited".
Hi,
popular Sets in the BDP-Series sell out within hours.
I appreciate the numbers have already been raised to 30k Sets.
But I would like to suggest to raise the production numbers for BDP-Sets even
more, maybe to 50k or 100k.
So people from different time zones have a better chance of getting a popular
set.
It will decrease frustrations with people coming too late.
More sets sold: More money for Bricklink and Lego.
Win-win for all!
So I suggest to give the BDP-programme a higher priority and more production
capacity in the Lego factories.
As a collector and investor myself and having just over 220 AFOL/BDP sets of
every set produced, and obviously multiples of each 30,000 sets is respectfully
at the high end already for collector/investor value.
1. If you increase the set amount any higher, BL will highly likely damage itself
as the BDP program will lack interest. This set increase to 30,000 is already
reflected in the growth margins/collectability after production. Opposed to the
original "BL" series with significant growth and good growth when the
program was at 10,000 sets.
2. There will simply be no real interest in a future increase of production.
3. I agree with you a few sets sell out quick, because they are indeed special
and a credit to those designers and others don't. The "time zone"
argument is irrelevant, the sets come on sale at the same time every series.
Set your alarm and get out of bed if you are series, im sure your internet doesn't
fall asleep based on time zones, you do.
4. Win, win for all? Uhhhhh no!, you clearly have only thought about yourself,
Sets must be limited and availability in ordering must be subject to stringent
timelines.
Germany, Niedersachsen
United Kingdom, England
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
USA, Montana
Canada, Alberta